EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CESCO Vs. DEBENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is of the year 2002 arising out of the judgment and order of the District Forum, Dhenkanal passed on 21.10.2002 in C.D. Case No. 15 of 2002.

(2.) THE appellants, namely, the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Dhenkanal and the Sub -Divisional Officer (Electrical), Dhenkanal Electrical Sub -Division, have assailed the aforementioned judgment and order of the District Forum, Dhenkanal passed in the complaint which was filed by the complainant -respondent Debendra Kumar Tripathy. The allegation in the complaint of the said complainant was that he is a consumer under the opposite parties and his contract demand of power supply was 1.5 KW. The meter was in good working condition and the seal was O.K. As per the meter reading, the complainant had been paying the electricity dues regularly. But, surprisingly the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs. 30,886.90 with a verification report, which revealed that the bill was towards penal charges due to by passing of the meter and consuming more electricity than the contract demand. The verification, according to the complainant, was done in his absence. After receipt of the bill, on 16.1.2002 he protested against the same before the opposite parties and requested for verification of the meter in his presence and also in presence of witnesses. But, without any further inquiry, the opposite parties disconnected the power supply of the complainant on 8.2.2002 without any notice. The opposite parties also threatened the complainant that unless the latter deposited the penal bill, power supply could not be restored. Accordingly, on 8.2.2002 the complainant deposited Rs. 8,900 only to get power supply. The penal bill is illegal, according to the complainant, and it has been done with a view to raise revenue target. In the circumstance, with a prayer for direction to the opposite parties to issue current bill after deducting the penal charges and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for deficiency in service the complaint was filed.

(3.) THE opposite parties appeared and filed written version denying the liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. They also filed documents in support of their action.